Objectivity, Reductionism and The 'Them And Us' Syndrome — Researchers and Farmers Significant barrier to increasing sustainability appears within the research and advisory institutions.
These bodies - like most research and scientific organisations - are dominated by a narrow approach to science, predominantly pursuing traditional reductionist science that seeks to identify simple cause-effect relationships.
At the foundation of modern science is the concept of reductionism, the attempt to isolate a minimum set of factors (preferably one) that appears to have a controlling influence on a particular situation or process. The desired outcome is usually the identification of a single, repeatable, measurable factor. Underlying reductionism is the belief that the whole can be understood as the sum of its parts. The weakness of this approach is its inability to deal with the immense complexity of relationships within agroecological systems. Interactions amongst a multiplicity of components, side effects, externalities, and long term consequences are often overlooked.
Modern science also relies heavily on the myth of objectivity and assumes that scientists can be above nature and, being free of nature's constraints, thus gaining a so-called objective viewpoint.
Belief in the separateness of human scientists and nature implies that scientists can see nature without self-involvement and without value prejudice because natural/agricultural systems are something other, something outside of self. Objectivity has come to mean trusting only carefully controlled, measurable, quantifiable results and finds no place for qualitative subjective assessments. Furthermore, a preoccupation with objective science in research removes the potential for that science to develop a life nurturing role which admits responsibility, supports ethical values, requires self-involvement, and is therefore inherently subjective. Successful achievement of sustainability will require multi-disciplinary, systems-based approaches in research along with recognition of underlying life supporting values. This will require a major cultural and operational change within research institutions.
Extension organisations consulted in this study seemed to evidence the well known attitude of "us
& them" - 'We are the advisers talking to them, the farmers'. This separation has led to a number of poorly orchestrated attempts to introduce potentially sustainable practices (min-till, green cane trash blankets, fertiliser incorporation) that resulted in poor success and loss of grower confidence.
Growers are demanding more involvement in research and, particularly, demonstration, which they
practitioners must operate locally in conjunction with the c o m m u n i t y and grower participation must dramatically increase.
Recommendation 21
That sugar industry research and extension organisations implement multi-disciplinary systems based approaches to R&D in collaboration with growers. Farmer involvement in research prioritisation, design, trials, and demonstrations is fundamental to the success of the research reorientation, and the success of participatory methods of extension.
Battling Empires
Research for the sugar industry is conducted by a multitude of organisations; B S E S , SRI, QDPI, CSIRO, universities and a few commercial companies. Structural diversity of R & D organisations has resulted in a number of constraints to increasing sustainability. Rivalries develop within and between organisations to the detriment of effective research, extension and adoption.
T h e structural diversity of research organisations represents both problems and potentials. In theory, there is sufficient research expertise available to support a rapid shift to greater sustainability in the industry, however this will require both reorientation and associated further capacity building.
Primary industries research is not only undertaken by a variety of organisation but is also funded from a variety of sources. Some research is publicly (government) funded; some commercially funded, while some is funded from grower research levies.
With this diversity it should be possible to accurately reflect g r o w e r ' s needs, public accountability, and the confidential needs of commercial research. It is however critical that the management of research is transparent to growers and that research objectives are not confused.
Institutional diversity may assist in promoting innovation, however innovation is m o r e likely to be sponsored by the culture of organisations rather than the structures. W h i l e there is no suggestion that R & D should be further centralised it is important to note that diversity of views can also confuse growers. Different positions and perspectives of the research and extension organisations generates confusion. For example, it seems Q D P I has been strongly supportive of green cane harvesting but B S E S far less supportive.
As the major sugar research organisation, B S E S often appears to exercises its p o w e r over other , organisations. During the course of this study it was seen seeking to discourage Q D P I and SRDC in conducting further regional sustainability case studies similar to this. B S E S appears to operates under a strongly centralist approach leaving little room for regional offices to pursue interests of local growers.
One result of the multi-organisational battles is a difficulty in presenting fully considered, integrated extension advice. The practical effectiveness and grower confidence has suffered in implementing minimum till, green harvesting, efficient fertiliser placement techniques and other practices because R & D and extension advice was not offered on a systematic basis by collaborating
Keeping It Sweet - ACF
organisations. As a result, growers are increasingly cautious in implementing agency advice.
Growers stated that they are happy to listen to the 'experts' but only adopt a new practice if they see it working locally, with other farmers. Increasing grower involvement in research, extension and demonstration programs is seen as an essential part of the solution. Grower involvement plus re-orientation, and coordination of research and extension planning is necessary.
In 1991-1992, the Sugar Industry Research Coordinating Committee was established from the Sugar Industry Policy Council, in accordance with the Queensland Sugar Industry Act 1990. This body is perhaps the most hopeful venue for deflating institutional rivalries and ensuring integrated research and extension.
Recommendation 22
That the Queensland Sugar Industry Research Coordinating Committee consider:
• reorganisation of sugar research to more strongly support sustainability,
• implementation of strategies for development of collaborative research and extension among existing organisations
• and establishing a mechanism for regionalisation with increased grower input into the planning and implementation of sugar research and extension.
These tasks can be assisted by SRDC's role in the development of R & D plans for the sugar industry. Other institutions and programs need to be brought into this forum. For example at the time of the study, there was no formal linkage between National Landcare Program funded cane trials and demonstrations and sugar research planning. Therefore wider sections of the industry may not even be aware of relevant trials being conducted by Landcare farmers. Currently in Mackay relevant NLP projects include vertical mulching of sodic subsoils and a pangola grass runner planting machine.
Secrecy and Science For Agribusiness
As a close knit and regulated industry, cane farming has always tended to look after its own interests and keep to itself. While this has resulted in a clear, if somewhat narrow, industry focus, the inward looking approach discourages broader communication.
A sizeable amount of research in the sugar industry is done on a confidential basis, for commercial companies. BSES pursues commercial funding for research in addition to government and growers' levy funding. At present this privately funded research is about 3 0 % of the BSES budget. Privately funded research projects often involve development of commercial products (or procedures) on a confidential basis.
Apart from this 'commercial-in-confidence research' there is a strong 'secrecy ethic' that is expressed in other ways, for example:-
• requests by the consultant for existing statewide B S E S R & D plans w e r e n o t met,
• requests for interviews with staff working on commercial research w e r e denied,
• specific requests for information known to exist on soil organochlorine levels and exchange capacity data were refused.
• the B S E S library in Brisbane is not open to the public nor to growers, m a k i n g it difficult if not impossible for an interested grower or consultants to access information.
• 'Canegrowers' (the organisation) had a consultant review B S E S and its effectiveness a few years ago, yet, this is not available for perusal by growers or outside interests, presumably because it was less than favourable,
• a more recent consultant's report (at the time of this study) w a s also not being released by Canegrowers.
These situations speak of a dissonance between growers and organisations and point to a possible invisible corporate interference, or profound mistrust in external scrutiny. Needless to say, this encourages further inquiry.
Much of R & D planning and collection of information has been funded by public or grower moneys. There is no justification for publicly funded agencies to withhold information collected at the public's expense.
Throughout the industrial world growth in profitability of agribusinesses supplying farm inputs or marketing, processing or manufacturing farm outputs has been far greater than g r o w t h in farm income. Generally as little as 10% or less of the final price of food or fibre products returns to t h e farmers, representing the resources and labour of the farmer. The balance is the cost of inputs that farmers purchase (energy, machinery, fertiliser, chemicals etc) and processing, transporting and marketing of farm products after they leave the farm. (Levins and Lewontin, 1985).
Farm input manufacturers' profits often come at the expense of farmers' profits, or at the expense of farmers options to choose more sustainable farming methods that d o n ' t involve purchased inputs. What is good for farm input manufacturers (or the research bodies that w o r k for them) is farmers who continue to use their products. It is 'good business' for pesticides to be addictive, b u t it is not good farming practice. Likewise it is potentially very profitable for a c o m p a n y to genetically engineer crops that resists herbicides so that sales of its herbicide increase. Clearly, t h e research interests of farmers, the public and agriculture related businesses do not always coincide.
The justification for the joint public/grower funding of agricultural research is improvement in t h e performance of the entire agricultural sector. However, a singular or dominant focus on productivity increase is patently no longer sufficient in light of the social and environmental consequences of modern farming.
Keeping It Sweet - ACF
Clear statements of future directions and research goals are required for accountability purposes. If the goal is simply to increase short term profitability, then this should be explicitly stated, and appropriately funded. If research has broader and long term goals this should be also stated. Clear definition of purpose and proposed outcomes is necessary.
Furthermore, when research organisations conduct private research with private funds, profitable practical results are desired, resulting in a shift from long term strategic research to short term tactical results. Expanding the profits of the agricultural input industries is not an appropriate focus for publicly funded research, or research organisations. What is needed is to move beyond the search for productivity at any cost and begin a serious search for sustainability in a world of diminishing fossil fuels, increasing ecological stress and social collapse.
With an increasing divergence between corporate and public goals it is quite likely that the current public/private funding partnerships will no longer work. It is necessary that research organisation are clear in their relationship to their "client" groups and that these are not confused. Aligning research priorities to corporate interests may not be sufficient if the goal is an environmentally sustainable farming system supporting a healthy rural society. Corporate goals are by their nature narrower than 'public good' goals. For example, growers see a need to move away from dependence on conventional chemical pesticide and fertiliser application practices to more environmentally friendly approaches — greater integrated pest management and biological and mineral fertility management. This direction, if supported, could threaten some companies in the agricultural input supply sector.
Of the numerous possible future strategies for agriculture, some are centralised, expertise intensive, and potentially highly profitable to those who control the techniques (biotechnology, new chemicals, genetic engineering, patented varieties).
When private funds are used for research, it is easy for scientists to come to see private enterprises' goals as their own goals, or as the goals of growers and society at large. It is far too easy for priorities to be distorted due to research funding from profit oriented agribusinesses. Clearer distinctions and greater differentiation of research and development operations are required. Private funding develops a focus on private goals.
The problems of commercialisation of publicly funded research and development organisation extend well beyond the sugar industry. There is an urgent need for the definition of research and development programs and priorities in terms of their balance of public good and private good foci and their balance of long term and short term research.
Recommendation 23
That throughout the sugar and other primary industries R&D sectors there is an urgent need for clear delineation and separation of public benefit and private benefit research and development In order to achieve this, institutions in which confidential, commercial (private) research and public research are conducted should be separated in order to restrict the influence of private
commercial priorities within publicly funded agencies. Confidential commercial research should
research and development institutions. So that the private sector can continue to commission research within publicly funded organisations, this commissioned research should be subject to contracts which specify the free flow of information generated
Impediments to researchers moving between commercial and public organisation (such as loss of entitlements -long service leave, seniority etc) should be removed to encourage greater capacity for personnel, skills and knowledge to flow between the private and public sectors.
Separation of commercial and public research would not discourage commercial research, but simply restrict its operation and influence within publicly funded agencies. Separating the public and commercially funded research is important in the clarification of roles and purposes of the respective organisations. Public accountability demands that the grower and publicly funded research is genuinely taking the broader view and working for the public good and the growers long term interests. This broader view by necessity must be aligned to the ESD policy principles focusing on social and ecological health, sustainable production and economic viability on the farm.